Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 701 | control, N = 351 | treatment, N = 351 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 70 | 50.92 ± 12.67 (25 - 74) | 50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74) | 51.36 ± 12.06 (31 - 72) | 0.775 |
gender | 70 | 0.794 | |||
f | 49 (70%) | 24 (69%) | 25 (71%) | ||
m | 21 (30%) | 11 (31%) | 10 (29%) | ||
occupation | 70 | 0.936 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (8.6%) | 4 (11%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
other | 2 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
part_time | 13 (19%) | 6 (17%) | 7 (20%) | ||
retired | 15 (21%) | 7 (20%) | 8 (23%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (31%) | 12 (34%) | 10 (29%) | ||
marital | 70 | 0.924 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
divore | 8 (11%) | 5 (14%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
married | 15 (21%) | 7 (20%) | 8 (23%) | ||
none | 40 (57%) | 20 (57%) | 20 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.3%) | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 70 | 0.992 | |||
bachelor | 20 (29%) | 9 (26%) | 11 (31%) | ||
diploma | 12 (17%) | 7 (20%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
primary | 5 (7.1%) | 2 (5.7%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 7 (10%) | 3 (8.6%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (21%) | 8 (23%) | 7 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
fam_income | 70 | 0.918 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.7%) | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.7%) | 2 (5.7%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (7.1%) | 2 (5.7%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.7%) | 3 (8.6%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
20001_above | 10 (14%) | 6 (17%) | 4 (11%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (13%) | 6 (17%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (10%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.6%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (8.6%) | 2 (5.7%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 70 | 60 (86%) | 31 (89%) | 29 (83%) | 0.495 |
onset_duration | 70 | 15.38 ± 11.60 (0 - 56) | 16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56) | 13.78 ± 10.13 (0 - 35) | 0.251 |
onset_age | 70 | 35.53 ± 13.88 (14 - 64) | 33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58) | 37.57 ± 14.86 (15 - 64) | 0.222 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 701 | control, N = 351 | treatment, N = 351 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 70 | 3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | >0.999 |
recovery_stage_b | 70 | 17.99 ± 2.63 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23) | 18.11 ± 2.59 (13 - 23) | 0.686 |
ras_confidence | 70 | 30.44 ± 4.78 (19 - 43) | 29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40) | 31.17 ± 5.24 (20 - 43) | 0.205 |
ras_willingness | 70 | 12.07 ± 1.95 (7 - 15) | 11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15) | 12.20 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.585 |
ras_goal | 70 | 17.59 ± 2.98 (12 - 24) | 17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.66 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 0.843 |
ras_reliance | 70 | 13.20 ± 2.84 (8 - 20) | 12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18) | 13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20) | 0.358 |
ras_domination | 70 | 10.01 ± 2.16 (3 - 15) | 10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15) | 9.60 ± 2.30 (3 - 14) | 0.110 |
symptom | 70 | 30.06 ± 9.95 (14 - 56) | 31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52) | 29.11 ± 10.19 (15 - 56) | 0.432 |
slof_work | 70 | 22.53 ± 4.85 (10 - 30) | 22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30) | 22.54 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.981 |
slof_relationship | 70 | 25.77 ± 6.02 (11 - 35) | 25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35) | 26.17 ± 5.81 (11 - 35) | 0.582 |
satisfaction | 70 | 20.81 ± 6.89 (5 - 32) | 19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29) | 22.37 ± 6.90 (5 - 32) | 0.058 |
mhc_emotional | 70 | 11.33 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17) | 11.77 ± 4.19 (4 - 18) | 0.336 |
mhc_social | 70 | 15.11 ± 5.50 (6 - 30) | 15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30) | 14.86 ± 5.51 (6 - 26) | 0.699 |
mhc_psychological | 70 | 22.39 ± 6.11 (6 - 36) | 21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36) | 22.83 ± 6.47 (6 - 36) | 0.548 |
resilisnce | 70 | 16.63 ± 4.53 (6 - 27) | 16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24) | 17.00 ± 4.72 (7 - 27) | 0.496 |
social_provision | 70 | 13.71 ± 2.94 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20) | 14.17 ± 3.25 (5 - 20) | 0.195 |
els_value_living | 70 | 17.33 ± 2.95 (5 - 25) | 16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22) | 18.00 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.056 |
els_life_fulfill | 70 | 12.90 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.91 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.008 |
els | 70 | 30.23 ± 5.57 (9 - 45) | 28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36) | 31.91 ± 6.12 (9 - 45) | 0.010 |
social_connect | 70 | 26.76 ± 9.31 (8 - 48) | 27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45) | 25.77 ± 10.28 (8 - 48) | 0.380 |
shs_agency | 70 | 14.59 ± 4.93 (3 - 24) | 13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 15.29 ± 5.18 (3 - 24) | 0.238 |
shs_pathway | 70 | 16.70 ± 3.95 (4 - 24) | 16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24) | 17.17 ± 4.04 (4 - 23) | 0.321 |
shs | 70 | 31.29 ± 8.40 (7 - 47) | 30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45) | 32.46 ± 8.62 (7 - 47) | 0.246 |
esteem | 70 | 12.70 ± 1.49 (10 - 18) | 12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18) | 12.54 ± 1.40 (10 - 16) | 0.381 |
mlq_search | 70 | 14.91 ± 3.38 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 21) | 0.780 |
mlq_presence | 70 | 13.60 ± 4.13 (3 - 21) | 13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20) | 13.69 ± 4.67 (3 - 21) | 0.864 |
mlq | 70 | 28.51 ± 6.71 (6 - 42) | 28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40) | 28.71 ± 7.47 (6 - 42) | 0.805 |
empower | 70 | 19.60 ± 4.12 (6 - 28) | 19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24) | 20.09 ± 4.41 (6 - 28) | 0.328 |
ismi_resistance | 70 | 14.60 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19) | 14.89 ± 3.08 (5 - 20) | 0.380 |
ismi_discrimation | 70 | 11.33 ± 3.24 (5 - 19) | 12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.37 (5 - 19) | 0.015 |
sss_affective | 70 | 10.00 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18) | 9.43 ± 4.19 (3 - 18) | 0.219 |
sss_behavior | 70 | 9.70 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 8.91 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 0.100 |
sss_cognitive | 70 | 8.27 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18) | 7.89 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 0.425 |
sss | 70 | 27.97 ± 11.03 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 26.23 ± 11.36 (9 - 54) | 0.188 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.206 | 2.74, 3.55 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.291 | -0.571, 0.571 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.321 | 0.315 | -0.296, 0.939 | 0.312 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.028 | 0.436 | -0.826, 0.883 | 0.948 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.456 | 17.0, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.257 | 0.644 | -1.01, 1.52 | 0.691 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.093 | 0.634 | -1.34, 1.15 | 0.884 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.567 | 0.876 | -1.15, 2.28 | 0.521 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.843 | 28.1, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.46 | 1.193 | -0.880, 3.79 | 0.225 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.339 | 0.908 | -1.44, 2.12 | 0.711 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.208 | 1.253 | -2.25, 2.66 | 0.869 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.335 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.257 | 0.474 | -0.671, 1.19 | 0.589 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.826 | 0.327 | -1.47, -0.186 | 0.015 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.684 | 0.450 | -0.199, 1.57 | 0.137 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.531 | 16.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.143 | 0.751 | -1.33, 1.62 | 0.850 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.760 | 0.595 | -1.93, 0.407 | 0.209 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.33 | 0.821 | -0.279, 2.94 | 0.113 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.472 | 12.0, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.629 | 0.667 | -0.679, 1.94 | 0.349 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.238 | 0.422 | -0.589, 1.06 | 0.576 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.808 | 0.581 | -0.332, 1.95 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.365 | 9.71, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.829 | 0.516 | -1.84, 0.183 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.391 | 0.488 | -1.35, 0.564 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.12 | 0.674 | -0.203, 2.44 | 0.104 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.0 | 1.678 | 27.7, 34.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.89 | 2.374 | -6.54, 2.77 | 0.430 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.451 | 1.173 | -2.75, 1.85 | 0.703 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.233 | 1.616 | -3.40, 2.93 | 0.886 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.831 | 20.9, 24.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.029 | 1.176 | -2.28, 2.33 | 0.981 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.508 | 0.673 | -1.83, 0.810 | 0.454 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.749 | 0.927 | -2.57, 1.07 | 0.424 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.4 | 1.013 | 23.4, 27.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.800 | 1.432 | -2.01, 3.61 | 0.578 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.42 | 0.957 | -3.29, 0.459 | 0.147 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.960 | 1.319 | -1.63, 3.55 | 0.471 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.178 | 16.9, 21.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.11 | 1.666 | -0.151, 6.38 | 0.065 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.706 | 1.329 | -1.90, 3.31 | 0.598 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 1.833 | -4.81, 2.38 | 0.512 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.9 | 0.640 | 9.63, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 0.905 | -0.888, 2.66 | 0.331 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.489 | 0.592 | -0.671, 1.65 | 0.414 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.816 | -2.78, 0.418 | 0.156 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.954 | 13.5, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.514 | 1.349 | -3.16, 2.13 | 0.704 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.988 | 0.984 | -0.940, 2.92 | 0.321 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 1.357 | -4.18, 1.14 | 0.269 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.9 | 1.073 | 19.8, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 1.518 | -2.09, 3.86 | 0.561 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.579 | 1.119 | -1.61, 2.77 | 0.608 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.64 | 1.543 | -4.67, 1.38 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.734 | 14.8, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.743 | 1.038 | -1.29, 2.78 | 0.476 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.336 | 0.731 | -1.10, 1.77 | 0.648 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.175 | 1.009 | -1.80, 2.15 | 0.863 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.489 | 12.3, 14.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.914 | 0.691 | -0.440, 2.27 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.400 | 0.523 | -1.42, 0.626 | 0.449 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.327 | 0.722 | -1.09, 1.74 | 0.653 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.492 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.34 | 0.696 | -0.020, 2.71 | 0.057 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.403 | 0.501 | -0.579, 1.38 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.363 | 0.691 | -1.72, 0.991 | 0.602 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.515 | 10.9, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.03 | 0.728 | 0.601, 3.46 | 0.007 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.966 | 0.547 | -0.105, 2.04 | 0.085 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.993 | 0.754 | -2.47, 0.484 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.082 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.901 | 26.8, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.37 | 1.275 | 0.873, 5.87 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.31 | 0.865 | -0.390, 3.00 | 0.139 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 1.192 | -3.61, 1.06 | 0.291 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.077 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 1.541 | 24.7, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.97 | 2.179 | -6.24, 2.30 | 0.369 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.190 | 1.249 | -2.26, 2.64 | 0.880 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.292 | 1.721 | -3.67, 3.08 | 0.866 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.830 | 12.3, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.40 | 1.173 | -0.900, 3.70 | 0.237 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.136 | 0.788 | -1.41, 1.68 | 0.864 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.565 | 1.087 | -1.57, 2.70 | 0.606 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.656 | 14.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.943 | 0.928 | -0.876, 2.76 | 0.313 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.462 | 0.564 | -0.644, 1.57 | 0.418 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.530 | 0.778 | -2.05, 0.994 | 0.500 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 1.400 | 27.4, 32.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.34 | 1.979 | -1.54, 6.22 | 0.240 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.568 | 1.195 | -1.77, 2.91 | 0.637 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.094 | 1.647 | -3.13, 3.32 | 0.955 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.237 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.314 | 0.335 | -0.971, 0.342 | 0.351 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.198 | 0.394 | -0.575, 0.971 | 0.618 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.040 | 0.547 | -1.03, 1.11 | 0.941 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.575 | 13.7, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.229 | 0.813 | -1.37, 1.82 | 0.779 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.106 | 0.741 | -1.56, 1.35 | 0.887 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.068 | 1.023 | -1.94, 2.07 | 0.947 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.683 | 12.2, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.171 | 0.967 | -1.72, 2.07 | 0.860 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.031 | 0.819 | -1.57, 1.64 | 0.970 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.020 | 1.131 | -2.20, 2.24 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.144 | 26.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.400 | 1.618 | -2.77, 3.57 | 0.805 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.093 | 1.400 | -2.84, 2.65 | 0.948 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.097 | 1.933 | -3.69, 3.89 | 0.960 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.671 | 17.8, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.971 | 0.949 | -0.889, 2.83 | 0.309 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.158 | 0.642 | -1.10, 1.42 | 0.807 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.869 | 0.885 | -2.60, 0.865 | 0.332 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.429 | 13.5, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.571 | 0.607 | -0.619, 1.76 | 0.349 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.436 | 0.609 | -0.758, 1.63 | 0.478 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.566 | 0.842 | -2.22, 1.08 | 0.505 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.537 | 11.2, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.86 | 0.759 | -3.34, -0.369 | 0.017 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.865 | 0.545 | -1.93, 0.202 | 0.120 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.28 | 0.751 | -0.195, 2.75 | 0.097 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.058 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.630 | 9.34, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.14 | 0.891 | -2.89, 0.604 | 0.204 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.040 | 0.546 | -1.11, 1.03 | 0.943 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.820 | 0.753 | -2.30, 0.655 | 0.283 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.646 | 9.22, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.57 | 0.914 | -3.36, 0.220 | 0.090 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.069 | 0.616 | -1.28, 1.14 | 0.911 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.641 | 0.850 | -2.31, 1.02 | 0.455 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.66 | 0.666 | 7.35, 9.96 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.771 | 0.942 | -2.62, 1.08 | 0.416 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.891 | 0.555 | -0.196, 1.98 | 0.116 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.67 | 0.764 | -3.17, -0.172 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.800 | 26.2, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.49 | 2.546 | -8.48, 1.50 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.857 | 1.427 | -1.94, 3.65 | 0.552 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.16 | 1.967 | -7.02, 0.695 | 0.116 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(100) = 15.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.95e-15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57], t(100) = 1.36e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.19e-16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.94], t(100) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.77])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.88], t(100) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.96, 18.75], t(100) = 39.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.52], t(100) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.15], t(100) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.28], t(100) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.06, 31.37], t(100) = 35.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.79], t(100) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.12], t(100) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.66], t(100) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.29, 12.60], t(100) = 35.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.19], t(100) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.19], t(100) = -2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.57], t(100) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.47, 18.56], t(100) = 32.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.62], t(100) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.41], t(100) = -1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.94], t(100) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.96, 13.81], t(100) = 27.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.94], t(100) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.06], t(100) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.95], t(100) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.71, 11.14], t(100) = 28.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.18], t(100) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.56], t(100) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.44], t(100) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.71, 34.29], t(100) = 18.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.89, 95% CI [-6.54, 2.77], t(100) = -0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.75, 1.85], t(100) = -0.38, p = 0.700; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-3.40, 2.93], t(100) = -0.14, p = 0.885; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.88, 24.14], t(100) = 27.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.33], t(100) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 5.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.81], t(100) = -0.76, p = 0.450; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.07], t(100) = -0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.39, 27.36], t(100) = 25.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-2.01, 3.61], t(100) = 0.56, p = 0.577; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-3.29, 0.46], t(100) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-1.63, 3.55], t(100) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.95, 21.57], t(100) = 16.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 6.38], t(100) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.90, 3.31], t(100) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-4.81, 2.38], t(100) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.63, 12.14], t(100) = 17.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.66], t(100) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.65], t(100) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.78, 0.42], t(100) = -1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.50, 17.24], t(100) = 16.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.16, 2.13], t(100) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.92], t(100) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-4.18, 1.14], t(100) = -1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.84, 24.05], t(100) = 20.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.86], t(100) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.61, 2.77], t(100) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.64, 95% CI [-4.67, 1.38], t(100) = -1.06, p = 0.287; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.82, 17.70], t(100) = 22.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.78], t(100) = 0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.77], t(100) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.80, 2.15], t(100) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.30, 14.21], t(100) = 27.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.27], t(100) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.63], t(100) = -0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.74], t(100) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.69, 17.62], t(100) = 33.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.71], t(100) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-6.87e-03, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.38], t(100) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.99], t(100) = -0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.88, 12.90], t(100) = 23.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.60, 3.46], t(100) = 2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.19, 1.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.11, 2.04], t(100) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.48], t(100) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.78, 30.31], t(100) = 31.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.37, 95% CI [0.87, 5.87], t(100) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [-0.39, 3.00], t(100) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.61, 1.06], t(100) = -1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.72, 30.76], t(100) = 18.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-6.24, 2.30], t(100) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.64], t(100) = 0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-3.67, 3.08], t(100) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.26, 15.51], t(100) = 16.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.90, 3.70], t(100) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.68], t(100) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.70], t(100) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.94, 17.51], t(100) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.76], t(100) = 1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.57], t(100) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-2.05, 0.99], t(100) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.37, 32.86], t(100) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.54, 6.22], t(100) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.77, 2.91], t(100) = 0.48, p = 0.634; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-3.13, 3.32], t(100) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.15) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.32], t(100) = 54.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.34], t(100) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.97], t(100) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.70])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.11], t(100) = 0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(100) = 25.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.82], t(100) = 0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.35], t(100) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.07], t(100) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.19e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.85], t(100) = 19.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.07], t(100) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.64], t(100) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 7.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.20, 2.24], t(100) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.07, 30.56], t(100) = 24.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-2.77, 3.57], t(100) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.65], t(100) = -0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.69, 3.89], t(100) = 0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.80, 20.43], t(100) = 28.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.83], t(100) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.42], t(100) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.87], t(100) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.47, 15.16], t(100) = 33.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.76], t(100) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.63], t(100) = 0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.22, 1.08], t(100) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.21, 13.31], t(100) = 22.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.37], t(100) = -2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.20], t(100) = -1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.75], t(100) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.34, 11.81], t(100) = 16.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.60], t(100) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.03], t(100) = -0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.66], t(100) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.22, 11.75], t(100) = 16.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.22], t(100) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.14], t(100) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.31, 1.02], t(100) = -0.75, p = 0.450; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.35, 9.96], t(100) = 12.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.62, 1.08], t(100) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.98], t(100) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.67, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.17], t(100) = -2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.19, 33.24], t(100) = 16.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-8.48, 1.50], t(100) = -1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.94, 3.65], t(100) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.16, 95% CI [-7.02, 0.70], t(100) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 343.533 | 351.523 | -168.766 | 337.533 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 347.093 | 363.073 | -167.546 | 335.093 | 2.440 | 3 | 0.486 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 505.906 | 513.896 | -249.953 | 499.906 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 510.699 | 526.680 | -249.349 | 498.699 | 1.207 | 3 | 0.751 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 622.166 | 630.156 | -308.083 | 616.166 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 625.773 | 641.754 | -306.886 | 613.773 | 2.393 | 3 | 0.495 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 424.454 | 432.445 | -209.227 | 418.454 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 423.532 | 439.512 | -205.766 | 411.532 | 6.923 | 3 | 0.074 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 527.593 | 535.583 | -260.796 | 521.593 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 530.363 | 546.343 | -259.181 | 518.363 | 3.230 | 3 | 0.357 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 493.067 | 501.058 | -243.534 | 487.067 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 490.268 | 506.248 | -239.134 | 478.268 | 8.800 | 3 | 0.032 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 459.561 | 467.552 | -226.781 | 453.561 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 461.346 | 477.327 | -224.673 | 449.346 | 4.215 | 3 | 0.239 |
symptom | null | 3 | 737.752 | 745.742 | -365.876 | 731.752 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 742.471 | 758.451 | -365.235 | 730.471 | 1.281 | 3 | 0.734 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 602.074 | 610.064 | -298.037 | 596.074 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 603.656 | 619.637 | -295.828 | 591.656 | 4.418 | 3 | 0.220 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 652.972 | 660.962 | -323.486 | 646.972 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 656.011 | 671.991 | -322.005 | 644.011 | 2.962 | 3 | 0.398 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 697.153 | 705.143 | -345.576 | 691.153 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 699.594 | 715.575 | -343.797 | 687.594 | 3.559 | 3 | 0.313 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 553.895 | 561.886 | -273.948 | 547.895 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 557.224 | 573.205 | -272.612 | 545.224 | 2.671 | 3 | 0.445 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 645.041 | 653.031 | -319.520 | 639.041 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 649.137 | 665.117 | -318.568 | 637.137 | 1.904 | 3 | 0.593 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 670.173 | 678.163 | -332.086 | 664.173 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 674.771 | 690.752 | -331.386 | 662.771 | 1.402 | 3 | 0.705 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 586.671 | 594.661 | -290.336 | 580.671 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 591.225 | 607.205 | -289.612 | 579.225 | 1.446 | 3 | 0.695 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 506.624 | 514.614 | -250.312 | 500.624 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 509.665 | 525.645 | -248.832 | 497.665 | 2.959 | 3 | 0.398 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 506.045 | 514.035 | -250.023 | 500.045 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 507.850 | 523.831 | -247.925 | 495.850 | 4.195 | 3 | 0.241 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 523.714 | 531.704 | -258.857 | 517.714 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 520.307 | 536.287 | -254.153 | 508.307 | 9.407 | 3 | 0.024 |
els | null | 3 | 634.614 | 642.604 | -314.307 | 628.614 | |||
els | random | 6 | 632.306 | 648.287 | -310.153 | 620.306 | 8.308 | 3 | 0.040 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 729.580 | 737.570 | -361.790 | 723.580 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 734.595 | 750.576 | -361.298 | 722.595 | 0.984 | 3 | 0.805 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 611.007 | 618.997 | -302.504 | 605.007 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 614.120 | 630.101 | -301.060 | 602.120 | 2.887 | 3 | 0.409 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 553.139 | 561.129 | -273.570 | 547.139 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 557.618 | 573.599 | -272.809 | 545.618 | 1.521 | 3 | 0.677 |
shs | null | 3 | 713.885 | 721.875 | -353.942 | 707.885 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 717.734 | 733.715 | -352.867 | 705.734 | 2.150 | 3 | 0.542 |
esteem | null | 3 | 375.439 | 383.429 | -184.720 | 369.439 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 379.654 | 395.635 | -183.827 | 367.654 | 1.785 | 3 | 0.618 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 549.829 | 557.819 | -271.914 | 543.829 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 555.693 | 571.673 | -271.846 | 543.693 | 0.136 | 3 | 0.987 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 582.013 | 590.003 | -288.006 | 576.013 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 587.966 | 603.947 | -287.983 | 575.966 | 0.047 | 3 | 0.997 |
mlq | null | 3 | 692.518 | 700.509 | -343.259 | 686.518 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 698.430 | 714.411 | -343.215 | 686.430 | 0.088 | 3 | 0.993 |
empower | null | 3 | 565.717 | 573.707 | -279.858 | 559.717 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 569.605 | 585.586 | -278.802 | 557.605 | 2.112 | 3 | 0.550 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 494.246 | 502.236 | -244.123 | 488.246 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 499.117 | 515.098 | -243.559 | 487.117 | 1.129 | 3 | 0.770 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 527.601 | 535.591 | -260.800 | 521.601 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 526.130 | 542.111 | -257.065 | 514.130 | 7.470 | 3 | 0.058 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 548.923 | 556.913 | -271.461 | 542.923 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 549.578 | 565.558 | -268.789 | 537.578 | 5.345 | 3 | 0.148 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 560.876 | 568.866 | -277.438 | 554.876 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 561.402 | 577.382 | -274.701 | 549.402 | 5.474 | 3 | 0.140 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 559.076 | 567.066 | -276.538 | 553.076 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 558.651 | 574.632 | -273.326 | 546.651 | 6.425 | 3 | 0.093 |
sss | null | 3 | 766.413 | 774.404 | -380.207 | 760.413 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 766.048 | 782.029 | -377.024 | 754.048 | 6.365 | 3 | 0.095 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 35 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 35 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 17 | 3.46 ± 1.20 | -0.317 | 19 | 3.49 ± 1.21 | -0.345 | 0.944 | -0.028 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 35 | 17.86 ± 2.70 | 35 | 18.11 ± 2.70 | 0.691 | -0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 17 | 17.76 ± 2.57 | 0.047 | 19 | 18.59 ± 2.59 | -0.238 | 0.341 | -0.413 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 35 | 29.71 ± 4.99 | 35 | 31.17 ± 4.99 | 0.225 | -0.528 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 17 | 30.05 ± 4.35 | -0.123 | 19 | 31.72 ± 4.42 | -0.198 | 0.258 | -0.604 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 35 | 11.94 ± 1.98 | 35 | 12.20 ± 1.98 | 0.589 | -0.261 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 17 | 11.12 ± 1.67 | 0.840 | 19 | 12.06 ± 1.71 | 0.145 | 0.098 | -0.957 |
ras_goal | 1st | 35 | 17.51 ± 3.14 | 35 | 17.66 ± 3.14 | 0.850 | -0.079 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 17 | 16.75 ± 2.78 | 0.419 | 19 | 18.23 ± 2.82 | -0.314 | 0.118 | -0.812 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 35 | 12.89 ± 2.79 | 35 | 13.51 ± 2.79 | 0.349 | -0.497 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 17 | 13.12 ± 2.30 | -0.188 | 19 | 14.56 ± 2.36 | -0.828 | 0.067 | -1.137 |
ras_domination | 1st | 35 | 10.43 ± 2.16 | 35 | 9.60 ± 2.16 | 0.112 | 0.544 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 17 | 10.04 ± 2.03 | 0.257 | 19 | 10.33 ± 2.05 | -0.477 | 0.672 | -0.190 |
symptom | 1st | 35 | 31.00 ± 9.93 | 35 | 29.11 ± 9.93 | 0.430 | 0.543 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 17 | 30.55 ± 7.73 | 0.130 | 19 | 28.43 ± 8.00 | 0.197 | 0.421 | 0.610 |
slof_work | 1st | 35 | 22.51 ± 4.92 | 35 | 22.54 ± 4.92 | 0.981 | -0.014 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 17 | 22.01 ± 3.95 | 0.254 | 19 | 21.29 ± 4.07 | 0.627 | 0.591 | 0.359 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 35 | 25.37 ± 5.99 | 35 | 26.17 ± 5.99 | 0.578 | -0.278 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 17 | 23.95 ± 5.01 | 0.493 | 19 | 25.72 ± 5.13 | 0.159 | 0.301 | -0.612 |
satisfaction | 1st | 35 | 19.26 ± 6.97 | 35 | 22.37 ± 6.97 | 0.065 | -0.768 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 17 | 19.96 ± 6.17 | -0.174 | 19 | 21.87 ± 6.26 | 0.125 | 0.361 | -0.469 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 35 | 10.89 ± 3.79 | 35 | 11.77 ± 3.79 | 0.331 | -0.499 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 17 | 11.37 ± 3.15 | -0.275 | 19 | 11.08 ± 3.22 | 0.390 | 0.781 | 0.167 |
mhc_social | 1st | 35 | 15.37 ± 5.64 | 35 | 14.86 ± 5.64 | 0.704 | 0.173 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 17 | 16.36 ± 4.85 | -0.332 | 19 | 14.32 ± 4.94 | 0.179 | 0.216 | 0.684 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 35 | 21.94 ± 6.35 | 35 | 22.83 ± 6.35 | 0.561 | -0.261 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 17 | 22.52 ± 5.47 | -0.171 | 19 | 21.76 ± 5.58 | 0.314 | 0.682 | 0.224 |
resilisnce | 1st | 35 | 16.26 ± 4.34 | 35 | 17.00 ± 4.34 | 0.476 | -0.337 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 17 | 16.59 ± 3.69 | -0.152 | 19 | 17.51 ± 3.77 | -0.232 | 0.462 | -0.416 |
social_provision | 1st | 35 | 13.26 ± 2.89 | 35 | 14.17 ± 2.89 | 0.189 | -0.576 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 17 | 12.86 ± 2.51 | 0.252 | 19 | 14.10 ± 2.56 | 0.046 | 0.145 | -0.782 |
els_value_living | 1st | 35 | 16.66 ± 2.91 | 35 | 18.00 ± 2.91 | 0.057 | -0.887 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 17 | 17.06 ± 2.49 | -0.266 | 19 | 18.04 ± 2.54 | -0.026 | 0.246 | -0.647 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 35 | 11.89 ± 3.05 | 35 | 13.91 ± 3.05 | 0.007 | -1.224 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 17 | 12.85 ± 2.64 | -0.583 | 19 | 13.89 ± 2.69 | 0.016 | 0.247 | -0.624 |
els | 1st | 35 | 28.54 ± 5.33 | 35 | 31.91 ± 5.33 | 0.010 | -1.296 | ||
els | 2nd | 17 | 29.85 ± 4.48 | -0.501 | 19 | 31.94 ± 4.58 | -0.011 | 0.169 | -0.805 |
social_connect | 1st | 35 | 27.74 ± 9.12 | 35 | 25.77 ± 9.12 | 0.369 | 0.530 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 17 | 27.93 ± 7.32 | -0.051 | 19 | 25.67 ± 7.54 | 0.027 | 0.364 | 0.608 |
shs_agency | 1st | 35 | 13.89 ± 4.91 | 35 | 15.29 ± 4.91 | 0.237 | -0.591 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 17 | 14.02 ± 4.11 | -0.058 | 19 | 15.99 ± 4.21 | -0.296 | 0.160 | -0.829 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 35 | 16.23 ± 3.88 | 35 | 17.17 ± 3.88 | 0.313 | -0.559 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 17 | 16.69 ± 3.16 | -0.274 | 19 | 17.10 ± 3.25 | 0.040 | 0.700 | -0.245 |
shs | 1st | 35 | 30.11 ± 8.28 | 35 | 32.46 ± 8.28 | 0.240 | -0.656 | ||
shs | 2nd | 17 | 30.68 ± 6.74 | -0.159 | 19 | 33.12 ± 6.93 | -0.185 | 0.288 | -0.683 |
esteem | 1st | 35 | 12.86 ± 1.40 | 35 | 12.54 ± 1.40 | 0.350 | 0.241 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 17 | 13.06 ± 1.42 | -0.152 | 19 | 12.78 ± 1.41 | -0.183 | 0.563 | 0.210 |
mlq_search | 1st | 35 | 14.80 ± 3.40 | 35 | 15.03 ± 3.40 | 0.779 | -0.099 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 17 | 14.69 ± 3.16 | 0.046 | 19 | 14.99 ± 3.19 | 0.016 | 0.780 | -0.129 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 35 | 13.51 ± 4.04 | 35 | 13.69 ± 4.04 | 0.860 | -0.068 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 17 | 13.54 ± 3.66 | -0.012 | 19 | 13.74 ± 3.70 | -0.020 | 0.877 | -0.076 |
mlq | 1st | 35 | 28.31 ± 6.77 | 35 | 28.71 ± 6.77 | 0.805 | -0.093 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 17 | 28.22 ± 6.16 | 0.021 | 19 | 28.72 ± 6.23 | -0.001 | 0.811 | -0.115 |
empower | 1st | 35 | 19.11 ± 3.97 | 35 | 20.09 ± 3.97 | 0.309 | -0.503 | ||
empower | 2nd | 17 | 19.27 ± 3.33 | -0.082 | 19 | 19.37 ± 3.41 | 0.368 | 0.928 | -0.053 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 35 | 14.31 ± 2.54 | 35 | 14.89 ± 2.54 | 0.349 | -0.297 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 17 | 14.75 ± 2.44 | -0.227 | 19 | 14.76 ± 2.45 | 0.068 | 0.995 | -0.003 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 35 | 12.26 ± 3.18 | 35 | 10.40 ± 3.18 | 0.017 | 1.128 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 17 | 11.39 ± 2.71 | 0.526 | 19 | 10.81 ± 2.77 | -0.251 | 0.528 | 0.352 |
sss_affective | 1st | 35 | 10.57 ± 3.73 | 35 | 9.43 ± 3.73 | 0.204 | 0.700 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 17 | 10.53 ± 3.04 | 0.024 | 19 | 8.57 ± 3.13 | 0.526 | 0.060 | 1.202 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 35 | 10.49 ± 3.82 | 35 | 8.91 ± 3.82 | 0.090 | 0.848 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 17 | 10.42 ± 3.21 | 0.037 | 19 | 8.20 ± 3.28 | 0.383 | 0.044 | 1.194 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 35 | 8.66 ± 3.94 | 35 | 7.89 ± 3.94 | 0.416 | 0.466 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 17 | 9.55 ± 3.19 | -0.539 | 19 | 7.11 ± 3.28 | 0.471 | 0.026 | 1.475 |
sss | 1st | 35 | 29.71 ± 10.65 | 35 | 26.23 ± 10.65 | 0.175 | 0.820 | ||
sss | 2nd | 17 | 30.57 ± 8.51 | -0.202 | 19 | 23.93 ± 8.77 | 0.542 | 0.023 | 1.564 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(96.04) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.58)
2st
t(101.06) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.83)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(90.40) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.54)
2st
t(100.91) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.53)
ras_confidence
1st
t(79.89) = 1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.83)
2st
t(102.00) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.57)
ras_willingness
1st
t(77.37) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.20)
2st
t(101.48) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.06)
ras_goal
1st
t(81.06) = 0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.64)
2st
t(101.97) = 1.58, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.32)
ras_reliance
1st
t(75.67) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.96)
2st
t(100.27) = 1.85, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.98)
ras_domination
1st
t(88.29) = -1.61, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.20)
2st
t(101.05) = 0.43, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.64)
symptom
1st
t(72.42) = -0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-6.62 to 2.85)
2st
t(93.82) = -0.81, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-7.33 to 3.09)
slof_work
1st
t(74.10) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.37)
2st
t(98.06) = -0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-3.37 to 1.93)
slof_relationship
1st
t(76.71) = 0.56, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.65)
2st
t(101.12) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.60 to 5.12)
satisfaction
1st
t(81.29) = 1.87, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.20 to 6.43)
2st
t(101.95) = 0.92, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-2.21 to 6.02)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(76.29) = 0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.69)
2st
t(100.83) = -0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.81)
mhc_social
1st
t(78.71) = -0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.17)
2st
t(101.89) = -1.25, p = 0.216, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.28 to 1.20)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(78.99) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.91)
2st
t(101.93) = -0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-4.41 to 2.90)
resilisnce
1st
t(77.88) = 0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.81)
2st
t(101.68) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.39)
social_provision
1st
t(79.72) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.29)
2st
t(101.99) = 1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.92)
els_value_living
1st
t(78.39) = 1.93, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.73)
2st
t(101.82) = 1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(79.47) = 2.78, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (0.58 to 3.48)
2st
t(101.98) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.80)
els
1st
t(77.03) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.30, 95% CI (0.83 to 5.91)
2st
t(101.31) = 1.39, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.90 to 5.09)
social_connect
1st
t(74.13) = -0.90, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-6.31 to 2.37)
2st
t(98.11) = -0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-7.18 to 2.66)
shs_agency
1st
t(76.82) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.94 to 3.74)
2st
t(101.20) = 1.42, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.79 to 4.72)
shs_pathway
1st
t(75.01) = 1.02, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.79)
2st
t(99.50) = 0.39, p = 0.700, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.54)
shs
1st
t(74.89) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.60 to 6.29)
2st
t(99.34) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-2.09 to 6.96)
esteem
1st
t(100.79) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.35)
2st
t(101.75) = -0.58, p = 0.563, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.66)
mlq_search
1st
t(86.50) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.85)
2st
t(101.25) = 0.28, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.40)
mlq_presence
1st
t(83.44) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.09)
2st
t(101.69) = 0.16, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.63)
mlq
1st
t(84.28) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.82 to 3.62)
2st
t(101.56) = 0.24, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-3.61 to 4.60)
empower
1st
t(76.96) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.86)
2st
t(101.27) = 0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.13 to 2.33)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(91.55) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.78)
2st
t(100.87) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.63)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(78.31) = -2.45, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.35)
2st
t(101.80) = -0.63, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.39 to 1.24)
sss_affective
1st
t(75.14) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.92 to 0.63)
2st
t(99.66) = -1.91, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-4.01 to 0.08)
sss_behavior
1st
t(76.89) = -1.72, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.39 to 0.25)
2st
t(101.23) = -2.04, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-4.36 to -0.07)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(74.51) = -0.82, p = 0.416, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.65 to 1.11)
2st
t(98.76) = -2.26, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-4.58 to -0.30)
sss
1st
t(73.84) = -1.37, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-8.56 to 1.59)
2st
t(97.53) = -2.31, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 1.56, 95% CI (-12.37 to -0.92)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(49.27) = 1.15, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.96)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(45.33) = 0.78, p = 0.883, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.70)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(39.60) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.30)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(38.38) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.49)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(40.19) = 1.00, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.72)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(37.56) = 2.60, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.86)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(44.07) = 1.55, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.67)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(36.03) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.94 to 1.58)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(36.82) = -1.96, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.55 to 0.04)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(38.06) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.30 to 1.39)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(40.31) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.06)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(37.86) = -1.23, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.83 to 0.45)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(39.02) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.43 to 1.37)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(39.16) = -1.00, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.22 to 1.10)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(38.62) = 0.73, p = 0.937, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.92)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(39.52) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.94)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(38.87) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.01)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(39.40) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(38.21) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.70)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(36.84) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.31)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(38.11) = 0.93, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.22)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(37.25) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.02)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(37.19) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.97)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(54.46) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.01)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(43.06) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.40)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(41.41) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.63)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(41.85) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.71)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(38.18) = -1.16, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.53)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(46.05) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.05)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(38.83) = 0.79, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.46)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(37.31) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(38.14) = -1.21, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.48)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(37.01) = -1.48, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.29)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(36.70) = -1.70, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-5.05 to 0.45)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(51.54) = 1.01, p = 0.635, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.96)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(46.97) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.19)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(40.37) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.19)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(38.97) = -2.52, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-1.49 to -0.16)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(41.05) = -1.27, p = 0.424, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.45)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(38.04) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.10)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(45.51) = -0.80, p = 0.861, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.60)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(36.30) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.84 to 1.93)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(37.19) = -0.75, p = 0.912, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.86)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(38.60) = -1.47, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-3.36 to 0.53)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(41.18) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.00 to 3.41)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(38.37) = 0.82, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.69)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(39.71) = 1.00, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.99)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(39.87) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.85)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(39.24) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.82)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(40.27) = -0.76, p = 0.904, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.66)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(39.53) = 0.80, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.42)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(40.13) = 1.76, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.08)
els
1st vs 2st
t(38.78) = 1.50, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.45 to 3.06)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(37.21) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.73)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(38.66) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.74)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(37.68) = 0.82, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.61)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(37.62) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.00)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(57.52) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.00)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(44.34) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.40)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(42.45) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.70)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(42.95) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.75)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(38.74) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.46)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(47.81) = 0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.67)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(39.48) = -1.58, p = 0.244, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.24)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(37.75) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.07)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(38.70) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.18)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(37.41) = 1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.02)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(37.05) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.76)
Plot
